Latest news with #AmericanDecline
Mail & Guardian
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mail & Guardian
The future world order must be based on tolerance and diversity
American academic Ali Mazrui said that the US, Secretary of State Marco Rubio in particular, should be saying 'what is good for the world is good for my country'. American political scientist Joseph S Nye Jr, who died last month, recently wrote in an The Future of World Order that we may not know until 2029 whether we are entering a totally new period of American decline or whether the second Trump administration's attacks on the American Century's institutions and alliances will prove to be another cyclical dip. One thing is certain. Nye will be proved correct, regardless of what happens. But we do not know what the post-American world order will look like, should we indeed be 'entering a totally new period'. Will it be a multipolar world order of the same Westphalian states with reformed global institutions or one of civilisations and cultures? Will democracies and non-democracies constitute each of the multiple poles or will it be one that is composed of poles formed around key states in each major world region? Will it be a Sino-centric, unipolar international system or more balanced? All we can say for now is that the future world order will be a product of the interplay between cultural processes and existing global structures. Beyond that, nothing is certain. A discourse on the future world order is, therefore, appropriate and timely. Ideally, the future world order will be based on at least two interrelated normative principles. The first principle is a steadfast commitment to respecting diversity, encompassing cultural, ethnic, racial, religious and ideological differences. We recognise that diversity is not a popular notion in some circles today. Indeed, globalisation has significantly contributed to greater global homogeneity, as lifestyles have become increasingly similar across vast distances. But let us not forget that the lifestyle that has become globalised is predominantly Western. At the same time, we also have a rich intermingling of racial, cultural, ethnic and linguistic groups at the local level. The primary drivers of this local heterogeneity have been the forces of migration and colonialism. In other words, the local landscape has evolved into a microcosm of the world. On the global level, the world has become an approximation of a village, without the empathy of the village. This creates a compelling paradox — as we experience local heterogenisation, we simultaneously witness a vibrant explosion of global homogenisation. The future world order must rise to the challenge of embracing both emerging trends as its normative foundation. We must embrace a creative synthesis incorporating the finest aspects of the world's major cultures and traditions. Consider, for instance, what is known as Africa's triple heritage: indigenous values, Islam and Western culture. An aspect of Africa's indigenous values is the remarkable ability of Africans to forgive. While Africans have endured more than their fair share of violence, they often embrace moments of reconciliation with an inspiring quickness. This short memory of hate can serve as a powerful antidote to endless division and hatred and it can also become the continent's contribution to a global ethic of tolerance. From the West, we can take the wealth of knowledge and innovative spirit that drives educational advancements and capitalistic growth — if they survive until 2029. Let us be inspired by Islam's profound emphasis on modesty and humility in character and appearance. By incorporating lessons from other civilisations and traditions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Shintoism, Sikhism etc) such an approach can provide a solid basis for a harmonious world order. It would be a great opportunity for a grand synthesis based on the word's rich diversity. The second principle is tolerance. If diversity can be measured through the objective lens of heterogeneity, true tolerance can be assessed by the degree of our willingness to accept and even embrace differences. This acceptance is not just a moral obligation. It is essential for a harmonious and sustainable world order. However, it is worth noting that being a victim of intolerance in the past does not always lead to an understanding of its importance. The very faith that endured persecution by Roman gladiators in the West eventually became the instrument of severe repression through the Inquisition. In Africa, as well, there has been, for example, a conflictual relationship between the majority Hutu and the minority Tutsi of Rwanda. At times, the Hutu have perpetrated violence against the Tutsi and at other times, it was the Tutsi who were the culprits. The conflict culminated in genocide in 1994. It is essential to acknowledge that Islam too, has, at various times and to different degrees, exhibited characteristics of heightened political militancy and religious bigotry. It may be that Islam in the pre-Ottoman empire was more tolerant and ecumenical. Sustainable tolerance needs unwavering attention and effort. Tolerance is not a one-time achievement. It is a vital practice that must be actively nurtured and systematically reinforced through institutional measures. Diversity, tolerance and a creative synthesis of global pools of shared values and distinctive traditions should form the basis of the future world order. This may be the most promising pathway towards building a constructively pluralistic world order and resolving the tension between the increasingly diverse global actors and the originally Western international system. The alternative is divisive pluralism. In short, tolerance and accepting diversity is good for the world and, therefore, good for the future world order. Unfortunately, however, the logic of the current US administration appears different. In the In what can be regarded as a word-for-word 'response' to Rubio, a wise man once said: 'Today, in the United States, there are many Americans who believe that what is good for America is good for the world, that my country is the world. We need to change the logic of global expectations … Instead of arguing, like the Americans, my country is the world, we should move to the proposition that what is good for the world is good for my country.' That wise man is Joseph Nye's contemporary and a pan-African political scientist. His name is Ali Mazrui. Mazrui Dr Seifudein Adem is a research fellow at JICA Ogata Research Institute for Peace and Development in Tokyo, Japan.
Japan Times
12-05-2025
- Business
- Japan Times
If China triumphs, America has itself to blame
In 2009, the late political columnist Charles Krauthammer penned an essay of prophetic clarity titled 'Decline is a Choice.' With characteristic incisiveness, he argued that the United States' global preeminence was not succumbing to some inexorable historical entropy but was being eroded by deliberate policy decisions — chiefly those of former President Barack Obama. Decline, Krauthammer insisted, was not fate; it was a choice. Today, that path has been reaffirmed with a fervor and recklessness that the political pundit could scarcely have envisaged. President Donald Trump's second term hasn't merely perpetuated America's retreat from global leadership, it has hastened its atrophy with chaotic zeal, cloaked in a rhetoric that mistakes bombast for strength. Promising to halt China's rise and restore American greatness, Trump has instead handed Beijing a golden opportunity to extend its influence — which the latter is doing with a sophistication and speed that should alarm any discerning observer. The evidence is stark, the irony profound: In his endeavor to make America great again, Trump has accelerated its decline. Stay updated on the trade wars. Quality journalism is more crucial than ever. Help us get the story right. For a limited time, we're offering a discounted subscription plan. Unlimited access US$30 US$18 /mo FOREVER subscribe NOW Consider the trade war, the cornerstone of Trump's economic strategy. Since January, U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods have soared to an astonishing 145%, a policy designed to cripple Beijing's economic ascent and reassert American dominance in areas like manufacturing. Yet this audacious gambit risks misfiring spectacularly — echoing the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which deepened the Great Depression rather than safeguarding U.S. industry. The fallout is unmistakable. Between last March and April, U.S. imports from China plummeted by 64% according to data tracking container ship loads, with the impending prospect of shortages emptying shelves and driving prices skyward. All the while, America's economy contracted — for the first time in three years — in the first quarter of this year. American consumers and businesses — already strained — will bear the brunt, while China deftly redirects its exports to Europe and emerging markets, reducing its reliance on the U.S. Nations like Vietnam and Mexico, caught in the crossfire, haven't fully rallied around Washington's cause but have inched toward Beijing, drawn by the stability it offers in contrast to Trump's tariff roller-coaster. Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited Hanoi last month in the wake of the U.S. president's most sweeping tariff announcements, signing a suite of agreements on trade facilitation and supply chain integration with Vietnam. South of the U.S. border, the picture is no less paradoxical. Mexico, long tethered to the American economy, already found itself with Chinese firms setting up shop on its soil aiming to use Mexico as a backdoor into the U.S. market — a fact that Washington's tariff policy is meant to address. Yet, while negotiating a reprieve with the U.S., Mexico's government is also investing in expanding its largest seaport in part to attract more trade with China. Far from containing Beijing, Trump has hastened its further integration into the global economy. Beyond economics, Washington's renewed isolationism has frayed the transatlantic bond that once defined the postwar order. For decades, the European Union has tethered its security and prosperity to the U.S., a partnership forged in the crucible of the 20th century. But Trump's erratic policies and diplomacy veering between belligerence and indifference have left the alliance in tatters. Faced with an unreliable partner, the EU is increasingly looking east, where Beijing presents a compelling alternative — but also a risky one. China's vast market offers some potential respite from Europe's struggle against stagnation: Belt and Road initiative (BRI) projects like the Budapest-Belgrade railway deliver infrastructure and jobs and on climate, the EU and China align on carbon reduction targets, in stark contrast to America reneging on its commitments. Even in technology, Brussels finds Beijing's state-driven approach to artificial intelligence more akin to its own than Washington's laissez-faire stance. The risks of cozying up to an authoritarian regime are evident — moral credibility and autonomy hang in the balance — but in European capitals, pragmatism may prevail over principle when Washington offers only unpredictability. Trump's retreat from global leadership is nowhere more evident than in the renewed withdrawal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization in January, framed as a reprimand for its COVID-19 response. The consequence? A void in global health governance that China has eagerly filled. By providing medical aid and through its vaccine diplomacy — note the stark irony here — Beijing has positioned itself as a cornerstone of international health, winning sway over poorer nations once dependent on American largesse. A shift with implications far beyond 'just' pandemics. Meanwhile, BRI marches forward with relentless ambition. Between 2013 and 2021, China invested $679 billion in infrastructure in 150 countries and this year it pledged a dramatic increase to meet its five-year targets. Chinese-backed railways, nuclear plants and ports are sprouting up across continents, with South America emerging as a key theater. Projects like Peru's Chancay megaport and Ecuador's Coca Codo Sinclair dam address development needs while fostering dependence. Trade agreements, notably for Brazil's soybeans and Chile's minerals, have made China a dominant partner, increasingly overshadowing the U.S. Cultural initiatives such as those carried out by Confucius Institutes and scholarships build goodwill, while military ties with Bolivia and Venezuela signal broader intent. Debt diplomacy, with loans that strain repayments, tightens Beijing's hold. South America, once firmly in the West's sphere, is realigning under China's aegis. Trump's disdain for international cooperation has eroded one of America's greatest assets, its soft power. Once the linchpin of Washington's global influence, it now falters — especially in Western Europe, where esteem for the U.S. has faded with the president's return to power, as emerges from a recent a YouGov poll. But Trump's policies have not only ceded global ground; they have weakened America at home. The trade war's economic fallout risks eroding living standards and the president's polarizing rhetoric deepens divisions, sapping the unity needed to tackle domestic issues and project strength abroad. Some might contend that Trump's tough stance on China is a necessary corrective and that Beijing's rise was inevitable. True, China has been ascendant for some time, but the pace and manner were not predetermined. Trump's chaotic unilateralism hasn't curbed Beijing; it has emboldened it. Others may cite America's military might and alliances as enduring strengths. Yet, military power alone is insufficient — economic and diplomatic clout matter equally, and here China is seeing rapid gains. Meanwhile, Trump's petulance has left alliances frayed, not fortified. American diplomacy under this administration has been a master class in strategic self-sabotage. Trump's willingness to let Russia keep Ukrainian territory — effectively rewarding aggression — in exchange for a ceasefire sends a message of American acquiescence that reverberates far beyond Eastern Europe. It is a signal to Beijing that the U.S. under Trump lacks the resolve to defend its allies or uphold the international order. The parallels to the 1930s are unsettling: A retreating great power, an emboldened dictator and the looming threat to a small democracy. China, ever the student of history, has taken note — Taiwan may now face an accelerated timeline for confrontation. The harm that Trump is causing to the United States' global standing isn't a transient squall but a tectonic shift. With its strategic patience and economic reach, Beijing is poised to define the 21st century. The allies see it, the data confirms it and history will record it not as a victory of foreign foes but a failure of American will. If decline is a choice, then Trump's America has made it twice — and this time, with conviction. Thomas O. Falk is a London-based political commentator and journalist.
